| Title |
Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40271-016-0177-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawn Stacey, France Légaré, Anne Lyddiatt, Anik M. C. Giguere, Manosila Yoganathan, Anton Saarimaki, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Tamara Rader, Peter Tugwell |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 8 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 13% |
| France | 2 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 6% |
| Singapore | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 56% |
| Scientists | 9 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 13% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,936,173
of 25,363,868 outputs
Outputs from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#39
of 583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,973
of 323,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.